Non-Verbal Child's Fantastic Guardian Angel Photo

[columbus]

In this particular story there is not much room for anything but the paranormal or an intentional fraud (by someone).

There is a huge amount of room for fraud.
Huge.
Not necessarily from the woman who put this on the internet. There are lots of other possibilities.

But some form of fraud or misunderstanding is vastly more plausible than a trickster god putting pics on a phone that convince people (yet more) that the supernatural is fictional. A human invention designed to trick people into believing false things for human gains.

Tom

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Very too well defined. I give that possibility very close to zero.

How? How "well-defined" should a smudge be? To me, that shape clearly isn't well defined at all.

There are perhaps multiple paranormal explanations. The one I would put first on the list would include a loving non-physical entity's involvement.

1) How did you determine it was loving?
2) How did you determine it was non-physical?
3) How did you determine it was an entity?
4) How is this an explanation?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In this particular story there is not much room for anything but the paranormal or an intentional fraud (by someone).

How could you possibly determine that? You have no idea what the condition of the flight was, exactly when and where the photo was taken on the flight, what other pictures taken on the same flight showed, whether the camera was working properly, whether anything was done to the image prior to publication, what the weather conditions were like at the time, or even really whether the picture was taken out of the window or even on board the flight at all. So how on earth can you narrow all the countless possibilities of how this picture came about two two, very narrow possibilities? How is your imagination so lacking?

 

[George-ananda]

There is a huge amount of room for fraud.
Huge.
Not necessarily from the woman who put this on the internet. There are lots of other possibilities.

But some form of fraud or misunderstanding is vastly more plausible than a trickster god putting pics on a phone that convince people (yet more) that the supernatural is fictional. A human invention designed to trick people into believing false things for human gains.

Tom

I went 75% paranormal; 25% fraud. Where would you put it?

 

[George-ananda]

1) How did you determine it was loving?
2) How did you determine it was non-physical?
3) How did you determine it was an entity?
4) How is this an explanation?

Notice I was not making a determination but answering the question as to what I thought the most likely explanation was. It is a mystery at this point.

My views on likelihood come from decades of consideration of the paranormal and spiritual and my overall judgment of human nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see. Why do you want to jump to the position that this woman is a wholesale liar?

It might not be her; maybe someone is messing with her.

Now, I do not know this woman personally so I do acknowledge the possibility that she is a wholesale liar. But after hearing thousands of paranormal stories I do not believe it is reasonable to believe that in every case that they are lies or misperceptions. I believe the paranormal happens.

And I believe that the Mona Lisa exists, but if someone tells me they have the real Mona Lisa in their basement, I'm going to call them a liar.

The picture is ridiculous. In terms of realism, it's somewhere between Weekly World News' "Bat Boy" and the Cottingley Fairies. Even if I thought that angels were real, I would still think that the best explanation for this picture is that someone is perpetuating a hoax.

 

[George-ananda]

How could you possibly determine that? You have no idea what the condition of the flight was, exactly when and where the photo was taken on the flight, what other pictures taken on the same flight showed, whether the camera was working properly, whether anything was done to the image prior to publication, what the weather conditions were like at the time, or even really whether the picture was taken out of the window or even on board the flight at all. So how on earth can you narrow all the countless possibilities of how this picture came about two two, very narrow possibilities? How is your imagination so lacking?

If a figure is as clearly defined as this, the odds of it happening naturally by an accumulation of random unintentional effects is very remote) but as I said not completely impossible but well below 1% I would say).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Notice I was not making a determination but answering the question as to what I thought the most likely explanation was. It is a mystery at this point.

If it's a mystery, how did you determine the likelihood of a particular conclusion?

My views on likelihood come from decades of consideration of the paranormal and spiritual and my overall judgment of human nature.

None of which is remotely relevant in this case because you have literally nothing to go on other than a photograph of indeterminate veracity or origin and the word of a woman who isn't even the person who took the photograph (and the news outlets obviously exaggerating it).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a figure is as clearly defined as this, the odds of it happening naturally by an accumulation of random unintentional effects is very remote) but as I said not completely impossible but well below 1% I would say).

How about relative to the odds of a cloud-man actually standing in the sky?

When calculating your odds, remember to take into account the fact that he's both invisible (since nobody on an airliner saw him) and visible (since he could be picked up by a phone camera, supposedly).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If a figure is as clearly defined as this, the odds of it happening naturally by an accumulation of random unintentional effects is very remote) but as I said not completely impossible but well below 1% I would say).

That is ridiculous. You know absolutely nothing about the photograph or what was in or near the photograph, so how are you able to accurately measure the probability of it being anything? Your logic is nonexistant. Human-like-shapes appear in nature all the time. Here are just a few recent examples seen in clouds:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Uma3jq52kAE/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_xzHzUyPnHg/hqdefault.jpg
https://singaporeinformer.com/files/2012/04/eerie-human-shaped-cloud-spotted-from-woodlands.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/08/article-0-18996FC400000578-980_634x414.jpg

Add to that the fact that you don't know whether this could have been a smudge, a reflection, a child's toy, or literally ANYTHING, you're basically just tilting at windmills.

 

[George-ananda]

It might not be her; maybe someone is messing with her.

A possibility I consider.

And I believe that the Mona Lisa exists, but if someone tells me they have the real Mona Lisa in their basement, I'm going to call them a liar.

I am not too sure about this analogy, There is only one real Mona Lisa, right?

The picture is ridiculous. In terms of realism, it's somewhere between Weekly World News' "Bat Boy" and the Cottingley Fairies. Even if I thought that angels were real, I would still think that the best explanation for this picture is that someone is perpetuating a hoax.

If everyone is being honest, then the picture 'is what it is'. I am not sure what a real paranormal image must look like on photo capture. Another point is that if it was faked, someone probably would have made it more like something a skeptic would accept (if that is possible).

 

[columbus]

I went 75% paranormal; 25% fraud. Where would you put it?

There are so many more than two possible answers that I cannot answer the question.
In fact, your putting it as a binary (fraud or paranormal) is solid evidence that you don't understand what either concept really means.
IMHO
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

If it's a mystery, how did you determine the likelihood of a particular conclusion?

Human reason does this all the time. We judge likeliness of various theories when we see things out of place.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's looks photoshopped. Was the photo tested?

 

[George-ananda]

How about relative to the odds of a cloud-man actually standing in the sky?

When calculating your odds, remember to take into account the fact that he's both invisible (since nobody on an airliner saw him) and visible (since he could be picked up by a phone camera, supposedly).

Yes, one's pre-existing views of the nature of the universe and human nature factor into one's position on likelihood of various theories.

 

[George-ananda]

That is ridiculous. You know absolutely nothing about the photograph or what was in or near the photograph, so how are you able to accurately measure the probability of it being anything?

Where was I claiming 'accuracy'? It was a guesstimate and there is nothing wrong with that. The more information we have the more certain we can become. At this point it is my guesstimate.]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here it is with background story Photo and Story from msn.com

The non-verbal down-syndrome child had become disturbed because of turbulence during an airline flight. This figure was not seen by the naked eye apparently. The mother is promoting nothing, just sharing.

If the mother wasn't promoting nothing, then why is it in the media?

 

[George-ananda]

There are so many more than two possible answers that I cannot answer the question.
In fact, your putting it as a binary (fraud or paranormal) is solid evidence that you don't understand what either concept really means.
IMHO
Tom

You can add a third category if you think it is warranted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A possibility I consider.

As you should.

Your OP certainly seemed to jump to conclusions. You said that the mother isn't promoting anything. You would have been more accurate to say that she isn't promoting anything you're aware of... so far. When we consider that we can't even say who would have been in a position to perpetrate a hoax like this, we have to recognize that you really have no idea whether a potential fraudster might be able to make money off this somehow.

And, of course, money isn't the only motivation to perpetuate a hoax.

I am not too sure about this analogy, There is only one real Mona Lisa, right?

If you have a problem with it, then we can change it up: a Jackson Pollock. There are a number of Jackson Pollock paintings in the world. There's also a definite chance he painted something that he kept secret.

Even in that case, I'm not going to automatically believe someone who claims he has one.

If everyone is being honest, then the picture 'is what it is'. I am not sure what a real paranormal image must look like on photo capture.

The photo sensors on a modern camera are designed to sense light in roughly the same wavelength range as the human eye.

Another point is that if it was faked, someone probably would have made it more like something a skeptic would accept (if that is possible).

IOW, if it was actually faked, it would look less fake? Do you expect me to take this seriously?

What would "more like something a skeptic would accept" look like?

 

[George-ananda]

It's looks photoshopped. Was the photo tested?

I don't know.